Obama Care vs Republicans

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

Wrong again!

Like most Congressmen, he keeps in touch with his family during the time they're in Washington, by using things like Skype, and the telephone, etc.

That includes reading bedtime stories, to his two sons. Man, you guys are a cynical bunch.

Wrong again!


Cruz has two daughters.

[glatt]

*snort*

[infinite monkey]

I reposted because my post got orphaned and it would be a damn shame if Adak didn't see how unfactual his facts are: even to the widdle childwen we are supposed to get all sentimental about.

Originally Posted by Adak

Wrong again!

Like most Congressmen, he keeps in touch with his family during the time they're in Washington, by using things like Skype, and the telephone, etc.

That includes reading bedtime stories, to his two sons. Man, you guys are a cynical bunch.

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Wrong again!


Cruz has two daughters.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

I reposted because my post got orphaned and it would be a damn shame if Adak didn't see how unfactual his facts are: even to the widdle childwen we are supposed to get all sentimental about.

Sorry, I've been working on a computer program for external sorting, and I don't care if Sen. Cruz has sons or daughters. Castigating the man for reading them a bed time story for a few minutes, when the floor of the Senate is virtually empty, is WRONG.

And you're quite uncivil in your doing so, may I say.

[DanaC]

[Lamplighter]

Today's GOP spiraling bullet point:

Sen Ted Cruz et al. and the GOP are now spinning a deteriorating and spiraling POV
that Obamacare "gives special exemptions to Congress... over the rights of individual citizens"

-----

As posted here earlier, during the 2010 debate over the Affordable Care Act,
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, proposed (a poison pill) amendment requiring members of Congress
and their staffs to purchase health insurance though state exchanges.
Democrats, viewing the amendment as a political stunt,
co-opted the idea as their own and inserted it into the bill.

Congressional members are paid by the US Government.
Some of their congressional staff are paid by the US Government,
but some "staff members" are not employees of the US Government,
such as the member's election committee staff, home district office staff, etc.
Thus, the US Government is the "employer" to all Congress members and some of their staff.

Cutting more directly to the point...

FactCheck.org
9/27/13
No ‘Special Subsidy’ for Congress

The exchanges were intended for uninsured people who
couldn't get health insurance through their employer or qualify for Medicaid.
Those who had access to health benefits meeting minimum coverage levels
could still purchase insurance on the exchanges
— but without a subsidy and using after-tax income.

Holding members of Congress and their staffs to that standard would have
the effect of stripping them of the employer-paid health coverage they currently get,
which is the same as any other federal employee.
So the Office of Personnel Management issued a proposed rule in August
making clear that the government would continue to pay the employer contribution
for congressional health benefits at the same rate as if members were still on the federal plan.

[Adak]

And Lamplighter, do you ACTUALLY believe that most employers will be continuing to pay into a medical insurance plan, that isn't required, for their employees?

And the “special subsidy” to which Pittenger refers is simply
a premium contribution that his employer, the federal government,
has long made to the health insurance policies of its workers.

Because I can assure you, if they're not forced to, most businesses will not be just throwing money into some expense that they don't have to.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

And Lamplighter, do you ACTUALLY believe that most employers
will be continuing to pay into a medical insurance plan, that isn't required, for their employees?
<snip>
Because I can assure you, if they're not forced to, most businesses will not be
just throwing money into some expense that they don't have to.

Yes, I do.

Employers with an annual employee levels of less than 30 FTE (full time equivalents)
remain exempt from Obamacare, and larger businesses (50 FTE) are required to provide health insurance.

Even if some employers change their benefits, it will be a relatively small
part of the economy, and will eventually sort itself out over the years.

But to your point...

The economics of employee benefits does not change just because of Obamacare.
Employers can spend $ on wages or on employee benefits, such as health care... their choice.
But tax benefits to the employer of the costs of health insurance are 35%

So, employers can balance spending 100% more in a salary raise,
against only 65% more in an increase in benefits to the employee... their choice.

That is not even considering the more "emotional" side of maintaining
employer/employee relationships, including such impacts on the business
as employee turn-over, employee illness/absense, positive employee motivations towards the business, etc.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Yes, I do.

Employers with an annual employee levels of less than 30 FTE (full time equivalents)
remain exempt from Obamacare, and larger businesses (50 FTE) are required to provide health insurance.

Many of our largest companies (in terms of their number of employees), have already been given exemptions!

And the Union officials met with Obama just recently. Oh, they're not saying what deal was reached - but they got one, probably won't kick in until 2015 though, and all the fuss dies down.

I don't know what to say, except that businesses (unlike our stupid fed gov't), will NOT continue to support "Cadillac" health care plans, for the vast majority of their work force.

A few VIP's, sure. The rest - no. Oh, Apple might, because they're VERY flush with $$$ right now. The vast majority will not, however.

Even if some employers change their benefits, it will be a relatively small
part of the economy, and will eventually sort itself out over the years.

But to your point...

The economics of employee benefits does not change just because of Obamacare.
Employers can spend $ on wages or on employee benefits, such as health care... their choice.
But tax benefits to the employer of the costs of health insurance are 35%

So, employers can balance spending 100% more in a salary raise,
against only 65% more in an increase in benefits to the employee... their choice.

That is not even considering the more "emotional" side of maintaining
employer/employee relationships, including such impacts on the business
as employee turn-over, employee illness/absense, positive employee motivations towards the business, etc.

Over 12,000 pages of regulations SO FAR for Obama Care, and you say the health care provisions of the past, won't be changed?

I disagree.

"Grandma" disagrees, as well. When said we should "just send her home with a pain pill", (instead of giving her a treatment), I believe every word of it.

They have it in Great Britain, also. You get old, and now you don't qualify for this or that treatment, any more.

Here's your pain pill. That will work wonders to cure your cancer.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

And Lamplighter, do you ACTUALLY believe that most employers will be continuing to pay into a medical insurance plan, that isn't required, for their employees?

"Continuing" answers your question. It wasn't required before the ACA, and they did it.

[glatt]

Thanks to the shutdown, the NIH stopped accepting new patients this week in their new drug trials, including children with cancer.

Good job, tea party.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by glatt

Thanks to the shutdown, the NIH stopped accepting new patients this week in their new drug trials, including children with cancer.

Good job, tea party.

Oh Yes! Glatt, what are you thinking here? That's why Obama decided to close the White House for tours to the public, earlier.

That's why the National Parks and monuments are shut down, now.

That why the National Zoo shut off the live cam on the Panda cubs. How much money does it take to keep a live cam turned on? Nothing.

The Democrats idea here is to make you suffer. If they just make you discomforted enough, you will give up a bit more of your liberty, to the Feds. And they don't have to listen to you bitching about it, anymore - because they can make you suffer whenever they want to.

If those pesky Republicans will just get cowed down, life could be SO MUCH easier.

A representative gov't, a gov't that has to respect our stated liberties in the documents that gave our country birth. Who needs that?

The House has tried several times to meet with the Senate and find a compromise to their differences.

Harry Reed (Senate Majority Leader), flatly refuses to any such meeting, and has advised the President to avoid attending such a meeting, as well.

They have to make us suffer, they have to beat down the Republicans, or they can't take away our liberties.

[Jesus]

Originally Posted by Adak

Oh Yes! Glatt, what are you thinking here? That's why Obama decided to close the White House for tours to the public, earlier.

That's why the National Parks and monuments are shut down, now.

That why the National Zoo shut off the live cam on the Panda cubs. How much money does it take to keep a live cam turned on? Nothing.

The Democrats idea here is to make you suffer. If they just make you discomforted enough, you will give up a bit more of your liberty, to the Feds. And they don't have to listen to you bitching about it, anymore - because they can make you suffer whenever they want to.

If those pesky Republicans will just get cowed down, life could be SO MUCH easier.

A representative gov't, a gov't that has to respect our stated liberties in the documents that gave our country birth. Who needs that?

The House has tried several times to meet with the Senate and find a compromise to their differences.

Harry Reed (Senate Majority Leader), flatly refuses to any such meeting, and has advised the President to avoid attending such a meeting, as well.

They have to make us suffer, they have to beat down the Republicans, or they can't take away our liberties.

You actually have that the wrong way round. The Dems have reached out 16/17 times to go to conference in the past 6 months over the budget. Each time the tealiban wing of the party refused to allow any negotiation because it's all or nothing with them, and each fight is yet another conservative purity test.

Not really sure how you can accuse the dems of wanting to take your liberties. Remind me again which president introduced the patriot act?

I'm not sure whether you actually believe this nonsense or whether you're just entrenched in your political idealogies, and spend too much time in front of Faux noise.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Jesus

You actually have that the wrong way round. The Dems have reached out 16/17 times to go to conference in the past 6 months over the budget. Each time the tealiban wing of the party refused to allow any negotiation because it's all or nothing with them, and each fight is yet another conservative purity test.

Not really sure how you can accuse the dems of wanting to take your liberties. Remind me again which president introduced the patriot act?

I'm not sure whether you actually believe this nonsense or whether you're just entrenched in your political idealogies, and spend too much time in front of Faux noise.

Oh yes! The Democrats are MORE than willing to cut expenditures based on official projections, sometime in the future.

Cut! Cut! Cut!!

Just like they did for Bush Sr., (ruining his hopes for re-election), Reagan, Bush Jr., and every other President who wanted to cut spending.

Then they don't ACTUALLY cut the spending when the promised time arrives. We've seen it so many times over the last several administrations, it's quite the norm now.

A lot of the Republicans would like to meet with the Senate Democrats, and work on SOMETHING to get this shutdown shut off, but now, when it's most critical, the Senate won't meet with them.

Their former offer was a sham - they cut next to nothing, and refused to honor most of what they agree to. Now that there is real pressure, and they'd have to REALLY negotiate - probably with the press actually taking notes of what was being done - they want nothing to do with it.

I understand. Obamacare is Obama's signature law, and the Democrats legacy this term. They certainly don't want to delay it.

Boehner by the way, didn't want to fight over Obamacare. He said that many months ago. Unfortunately, Obamacare is so unpopular, the hard line Republicans demanded he take a stand on it.

Several years back, Boehner was demoted from the leadership position he held in the House, because he didn't really listen to the people he was leading. He has (quite remarkably), worked his way now, into the top position in the House. This time, he is listening to those Republican Representatives, when he needs to.

If the Senate Democrats can't agree to negotiate with the House Republicans, we need someone from the Executive Branch to break the deadlock here, and get some negotiating going, once again.

It's hard to negotiate though with Harry Reed. Don't know if you're familiar with the guy, but he's a lot like Nancy ("food stamps are a great stimulus to the economy" Pelosi - everything has to be her/his way, or it's the highway. There's very little innate flexibility in either of them. And their incendiary comments have not helped calm the emotions down, one bit.

Reed is not one of those guys that you want to see get a kick in the butt, he's one of the guys that YOU want to kick in the butt, but you can't - because the altar boy or priest, kicked him first.

[infinite monkey]

I wish they could shut YOU down. Or even up.